Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EngagedScholarship@CSU
Philosophy and Religious Studies Department Philosophy and Religious Studies Department
Faculty Publications
12-2015
Original Citation
Simkulet, William. "On the Signpost Principle of Alternate Possibilities: Why Contemporary Frankfurt-Style
Cases are Irrelevant to the Free Will Debate." Filosofiska Notiser, Volume 2, Number 3, 2015, pp. 107-20.
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy and Religious Studies Department at
EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy and Religious Studies Department
Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please
contact library.es@csuohio.edu.
On the Signpost Principle of Alternate Possibilities:
Why Contemporary Frankfurt-Style Cases are
Irrelevant to the Free Will Debate
William Simkulet
Abstract
This article contends that recent attempts to construct Frankfurt-style cases
(FSCs) are irrelevant to the debate over free will. The principle of alternate
possibilities (PAP) states that moral responsibility requires indeterminism, or
multiple possible futures. Frankfurt's original case purported to demonstrate
PAP false by showing an agent can be blameworthy despite not having the
ability to choose otherwise; however he admits the agent can come to that
choice freely or by force, and thus has alternate possibilities. Neo-FSCs
attempt to show that alternate possibilities are irrelevant to explaining an
agent's moral responsibility, but a successful Neo-FSC would be consistent
with the truth of PAP, and thus is silent on the big metaphysical issues at the
center of the free will debate.
Introduction
Frankfurt-style cases (FSCs) are modeled after a case in Harry Frankfurt's
"Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility," where in an agent is
purported to be uncontroversially morally responsible despite lacking the
ability to do otherwise. 1 If FSCs are as advertised, they would be counter-
examples to the principle of alternate possibilities (PAP), according to which
one is morally responsible for something only if she could do otherwise.
Much has been written about FSCs, but the general consensus is that they fail
to be genuine counterexamples to PAP. 2 The reason FSCs have garnered
such attention is that PAP is said to play a vital role in the debate over
whether free will is consistent with determinism. Contemporary proponents
of FSCs have largely abandoned the goal of constructing a counterexample to
PAP, and instead aim to show merely that alternate possibilities don't play a
role in determining an agent's degree of moral responsibility. This article
1
Frankfurt 1969.
2
See Fischer 2010 and Widerker and McKenna 2003/2006 for strong work on the topic.
SPAP - A necessary, but not sufficient, condition for agent A's being
morally responsible for something s is that A could have done
otherwise.
This article is divided into three sections. In the first, I discuss the virtues
of traditional FSCs as purported counterexamples to PAP, but demonstrate
why these cases fail. 7 In the second section, I show that Neo-FSCs are
3
Franklin 2009.
4
By "true moral responsibility" here I mean to capture, roughly, what Galen Strawson discusses
in "The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility." See Strawson 1994/2002. For the purposes of
this paper, "moral responsibility" is to be understood as "true moral responsibility."
5
See Fischer 1992; Mele, Robb 1998.
6
See Hunt 200, 2005; Pereboom 2001, 2005, 2008.
7
Oddly, this approach is largely indifferent to Frankfurt's original goal of undermining PAP by
undermining its appeal. Initially Frankfurt argued that PAP was appealing because of its
relationship to a different commonsense moral principle, the coercion principle, which is
sometimes said to leave an agent no alternative to doing as their coercer desires. (1969)
Frankfurt's initial versions of the case were meant to provide a counterexample to coercion
principle; his case, he says, called attention to an important distinction, "that making an action
unavoidable is not the same thing as bringing it about that the action is performed." (2003/2006,
340) He says "Appreciating this distinction tends to liberate us from the natural but nonetheless
erroneous supposition that it is proper to regard people as morally responsible for what they have
108
On the Signpost Principle of Alternate Possibilities
done only if they could have done otherwise." The problem is that this distinction is largely
irrelevant, as the supposition in question just is the supposition that moral responsibility and
determinism are incompatible. In all cases where an agent is determined to act, the thing that
makes it unavoidable just is that which causally determined the agent to act; the intuition in
question just is the intuition that it would be inappropriate to blame someone in such a case. See
Ginet 1996.
109
William Simkulet
The appeal of Frankfurt's case is that it attempts to sidestep the more thorny
metaethical and metaphysical issues that have become the calling card of the
free will debate, and is designed to be an open-ended counterexample to any
reasonable interpretation of PAP, regardless of what kind of alternate
possibilities one interprets PAP as requiring. Frankfurt stipulates that Jones's
choice is free, allowing the reader to fill in whatever metaphysical
8
Frankfurt contends our intuitions about PAP are related to our commitment to the truth of the
coercion principle but offers no explanation for this being the case. Although it sometimes
makes sense to say that coerced agents can't do otherwise; Frankfurt contends that this isn't
"strictly speaking" true. (1969, 834) Rather, when faced with some threats, one shouldn't do
otherwise, and would be blameworthy if they tried. To act to avoid the bad consequences of a
sufficiently horrible threat, then, is not responsibility absolving; rather it is prima facie
praiseworthy. Not only is the coercion principle not implied by PAP, it doesn't even have the
same kind of implications as PAP. The coercion principle is about how we ought to calculate
one's degree of moral responsibility; where as a thief might be prima facie blameworthy, where
we to learn the thief acted under a coercive threat to save her children's life it would become
clear that she acted in a praiseworthy manner. In contrast, according to PAP, if we were to learn
that a thief was actually a complicated robot wholly causally determined by its programming to
steal, PAP offers a quick explanation why that thing is not morally responsible like a person
would be; because it had no say, no alternatives.
9
Frankfurt worries that it doesn't make sense to say that such an agent is coerced; however he
expands upon this view later to great effect. See Frankfurt 1973.
10
This case is partially based one found in Alfred Mele and David Robb's 1998 article "Rescuing
Frankfurt-Style Cases."
110
On the Signpost Principle of Alternate Possibilities
11
See Kane 1985, 1996; Widerker 1995; Ginet 1996; Wyma 1997; Goetz 2005; Simkulet 2012,
2014a.
12
See Fischer 2000, 2007, 2010.
111
William Simkulet
13
Michael Otsuka similarly argues that the morally relevant kind of alternate possibilities in
question are the alternate manner in which Jones can act; either freely (viciously) or be forced to
act by Black (in such a way that makes it absurd to hold him accountable for his action). See
Otsuka 1998.
112
On the Signpost Principle of Alternate Possibilities
14
See Hunt 2005, Pereboom 2001, 2005, 2008.
113
William Simkulet
15
In Hunt and Pereboom's original cases they fail to specify whether Jones or Joe have sufficient
working knowledge of their bizarre mental faculties to know the steps they need to take to act
otherwise. This article stipulates that they have this knowledge, because if they were ignorant of
such things it would be absurd to expect them to do otherwise as they would have no reason to
do so, and thus absurd to hold them morally accountable for failing to take the steps to change
their minds.
16
See Simkulet 2014a.
114
On the Signpost Principle of Alternate Possibilities
monitoring makes it impossible that Jones can ever freely choose not to kill
Smith, and Black's device makes it impossible that Joe can ever freely choose
not to cheat on his taxes; both Jones and Joe know that they have a strong
moral obligation to do otherwise, and fail to do so. Implicit in the idea of a
moral obligation is that if one fails, one is differently morally responsible
than if one succeeds. As such, the buffer-step that Hunt and Pereboom
construct constitutes a robust alternate possibility - if Jones and Joe take this
step intending it to be the first step in avoiding a blameworthy action (killing
Smith, cheating) in favor of a praiseworthy action (not killing Smith, not
cheating), they are inherently praiseworthy for doing so.
I've argued that Jones and Joe have a strong moral obligation to engage in
the steps they believe are necessary prerequisites for freely choosing to do
what each thinks is right - not killing Smith, and not cheating on taxes,
respectively - and that if they do these prerequisites for these reasons, they
are morally praiseworthy for doing so. However, it is possible that Jones and
Joe engage in these steps for other reasons. Suppose that Jones knows that
unless he considers his alternatives, he will be causally determined to kill
Smith, but that Jones wants Smith to experience worse, say by letting Smith
live and systematically killing everyone and everything Smith loves. By
stipulation, Jones knows the only way he can choose to do such a thing is to
freely consider his alternatives. If, intent upon getting his revenge, Jones
considers his alternatives (with the hope of choosing this long drawn out
torture over a swift death), Black will intervene and rob Jones of his free will
and causally determine that he kills Smith then and there. If this were the
case, it doesn't make sense to say that Jones is morally blameworthy for
Smith's death... but he is blameworthy for something. He is blameworthy for
freely acting in such a way that he believes is a necessary prerequisite for his
murdering Smith's friends and loved ones to bring about that very
consequence.
Although critics of Neo-FSCs could focus on demonstrating the prima
facie praiseworthy possibilities of Jones or Joe acting otherwise, it is clear
that whether they would be praiseworthy or blameworthy for their alternate
possible actions depends upon the intentions they take those actions with. 17
17
It strikes me as possible that a well-intentioned Jones might still freely choose to either kill
Smith, or get revenge on Smith by killing Smith's friends and family; however such a Jones
would still be prima facie praiseworthy for acting in a manner such that he believed was
necessary for him to do what is right. He is, however, blameworthy for his latter, wrong, free
choice.
115
William Simkulet
18
Note that a successful Fischer-style interpretation of a FSC would prove the truth of
compatibilism. It strikes me that such a successful case would also undermine the majority of
116
On the Signpost Principle of Alternate Possibilities
our beliefs about moral responsibility and undermine the idea that commonsense moral intuitions
could be a reliable guide to either metaphysical or moral truth.
117
William Simkulet
19
For more on moral luck see Nagel 1976, Zimmerman 2002, 2006, Simkulet 2014b.
20
Moral luck would occur if and only if something outside of an agent's control would determine
their moral responsibility; however as demonstrated in Hunt and Pereboom's cases, the existence
of alternate possibilities don't determine the moral responsibility of either Jones or Joe; however
the agent's beliefs about their alternate possibilities plays a vital role in explaining why they are
morally culpable to the degree in which they are, much as Frankfurt argues that an agent's beliefs
and intentions surrounding a coercive threat determines how morally culpable they are for acting
in accordance with that threat, because of the threat, or indifferent to the threat.
118
On the Signpost Principle of Alternate Possibilities
References
Fischer, John Martin. (1982). Responsibility and Control. Journal of
Philosophy 79, pp. 24–40.
Fischer, John Martin. (2000). As Go the Frankfurt Examples, so Goes
Deontic Morality. The Journal of Ethics 4, pp. 361–363.
Fischer, John Martin. (2007). The Importance of Frankfurt-Style Argument.
The Philosophical Quarterly 57, pp. 464–471.
Fischer, John Martin. (2010). The Frankfurt Cases: The Moral of the Stories.
Philosophical Review 119, pp. 315–336.
Frankfurt, Harry G. (1969). Alternate Possibilities and Moral
Responsibility”, The Journal of Philosophy, 66, pp. 829–839.
Frankfurt, Harry G.. (1973). Coercion and Moral Responsibility. Essays on
Freedom of Action, ed. Ted Honderich, London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul, pp. 41–42.
Frankfurt, Harry G. (2003/2006). Some Thoughts Concerning PAP. Moral
Responsibility and Alternative Possibilities Essays on the Importance of
Alternative Possibilities, ed. Widerker, David and McKenna, Michael,
Aldershot, England, Ashgate Publishing Limited. pp. 339–345.
Franklin, Christopher. (2009). Neo-Frankfurtians and Buffer Cases: the New
Challenge to the Principle of Alternative Possibilities. Philosophical
Studies 152, pp. 189–207.
Ginet, Carl. (1996). In Defense of the Principle of Alternative Possibilities:
Why I Don’t Find Frankfurt’s Argument Convincing. Philosophical
Perspectives 10, pp. 403–417.
Goetz, Stewart. (2005). Frankfurt-Style Counterexamples and Begging the
Question. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 29, pp. 83–105.
Hunt, David. (2000). Moral Responsibility and Unavoidable Action.
Philosophical Studies 97, pp. 195–227.
Hunt, David. (2005). Moral responsibility and buffered alternatives. Midwest
Studies in Philosophy 29, pp. 126–145.
Kane, Robert. (1985). Free Will and Values, Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Kane, Robert. (1996). The Significance of Free Will, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Mele, Alfred R.; Robb, David. (1998). Rescuing Frankfurt-Style Cases. The
Philosophical Review 107, pp. 97–112.
Nagel, Thomas. (1976). Moral Luck. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society
Supplementary Volumes 50, pp. 137–151.
Otsuka, Michael. (1998). Incompatibilism and the Avoidability of Blame.
Ethics 108, pp. 685–701.
119
William Simkulet
William Simkulet
Cleveland State University
simkuletwm@yahoo.com
120